EU pol

[Kagemusha]

This is simple.Do you support EU developing as an Federal State?

[Duke Malcolm]

No! In the name of all that we hold dear : No!
Such blasphemy, 'tis a crime, surely.
Giving some European fool dominion over these Sacred Isles is wrong, and hasn't been tried since the Romans, who failed. Other Continental types tried to get little bits, but not the whole, and they still failed, except William of Normandy, who managed to defeat the English, 'cause they weren't as good as those French-types...

Rather give the British Commonwealth of Nations dominion over the Isles, because we run that...

[Al Khalifah]

Absolutely not.
Not until there is a common goal for the EU will I ever believe in it and I strongly doubt such an ideal will ever emerge.

[Ldvs]

Yes, I do. I'm for a strong European government and Parliament (removal of the Commission if possible, unless they're only given an advisory role). I wouldn't mind harsh methods (departure of many states, even big ones) if it could lead to a EU core sharing the same ambition and not crippled by compromises.

[Shambles]

Gb has money that EU would share amongs them selfs,
i see no gain in GB becoming a part of the EU

But then Its not nice to keep the money and let others suffer
so I say GAH!

[ShadesWolf]

NO !

[Crazed Rabbit]

Hmm. I don't know. Europe as it is appears to be a motley collection of socialist, decaying economies. Seeing as I'm an American, that isn't so bad. However, we want someone to be able to buy our goods and stuff, so having the rest of the world turn into a copy of Cuba wouldn't be good.

And what is the EU? A large federation of motley, socialist, decaying economies? It would seem relatively benign and harmless, but for their seemingly endless ambition to challenge and best America. Not to mention that the heads of the EU seem to want to turn it into one giant superstate and eliminate national soveriegnty.

If I live in the EU area, I'd be screaming no, but as it is, I'll just politely mention that I think its a bad idea.

Crazed Rabbit

[Mount Suribachi]

Good grief no!

[Lazul]

Crazy Rabbit... there is nothing socialistic about the EU and our economy is hardly decaying, atleast not more then the US economy.

[A.Saturnus]

It seems the naysayers are more vocal.

[Kagemusha]

It seems the naysayers are more vocal.

It seems to me this is going to be tight one.

[doc_bean]

Yes, but I don't want to rush it.

I'd rather have a common market than no common market, I'd rather have a strong union in a 100years than one forced upon the people now.

I think, if a federal union is ever going to happen, the UK should probably get a special statute.

[Boohugh]

Absolut-diddly-outly not.

Sorry, been watching too much Simpsons

[JAG]

Yes, definitely.

I would not mind at all if the UK was one state among the greater being - the EU.

[bmolsson]

A large European Federation is necessary to save the world from all those small "besserwisser" countries around Europe. Europeans are good, but much better in minority......

[Kaiser of Arabia]

No! It's a travesty that would lead to the ultimate destruction of civilization outside the American continent! All it would do is create a weak superstate that would fall to the hordes of radical communists and anarchists from within, and would perpetuate the downfall of not only European society and culture, but civilization and culture in the world itself. [/rant]

[cunctator]

Yes, at all cost. I prefer a democratic EU over nearly anything else. (A world state would still be better.) The nation state becomes outdated in a globalised world. There are so many things that could better be dealt with on a european level. Why do the 25 EU countries need 25 seperate armys? Why more than one currency? ....

[thrashaholic]

Ultimately yes looking to the long term, but at present a load and resounding no.

Continental Europe needs to sort itself out economically, it needs a good set of monetarist Thatcher-esque reforms. It doesn't take a genius to see that because Britain had Thatcher we are now prospering above and beyond our neighbours.

The EU itself also needs major reforms to eliminate all the corruption, bureaucracy and inequity rife at all levels. Trimming down the number of official languages to an absolute maximum of 3 (English, French, German) would help.

Basically, for the EU to work, everone should become just a little more British

[Ldvs]

Yes, definitely.

I would not mind at all if the UK was one state among the greater being - the EU.

You must feel alone in the UK JAG. I'd wager you've regularly received death threats for expressing such pro-Euro opinions

Basically, for the EU to work, everone should become just a little more British

If it means adopting Thatcherism, I'd rather exile. There are already enough poor in our European countries, especially in the UK.

[doc_bean]

I think English should become the main European language, almost everyone besides the French speaks it already pretty decently anyway.

[Ldvs]

I think English should become the main European language, almost everyone besides the French speaks it already pretty decently anyway.

It is already. If you want a proof: the Constitution was written in English before any other language. Personally, I would be favorable to English as the official language because both French and German have a horrible grammar and conjugation is a pure nightmare.

[Al Khalifah]

English is slowly becomming the international language of Scandinavia too. Rather than learn two other languages to speak to other Scandinavians they can just learn one and be able to speak to people from pretty much every other EU country as well.

It makes sense to learn English.

[Ldvs]

I don't speak any Scandinavian languages, but it seems to me that Norwegian, Danish and Swedish are quite close, especially Danish and Swedish. I heard they could understand each other despite their different accent. I don't know to what extent this is right, maybe a Scandinavian will affirm or negate that claim.

[English assassin]

I can understand the view that the nation state is done (I have to say I don't agree but I can understand it). What I don't understand is how you go from that to deciding that the answer is...... a really big nation state.

IMHO Europe is too different, largely economically but also socially, for a federal state to work. Really very important structural factors like home ownership or pension provision are hugely different accross the members. That was true before enlargement, heaven only knows what it is like now. The place simply can't be run as one country, even a federal one.

Besides, can't we come up with something a bit more 21st century rather than apeing 19th century America?

If you ask me, what we need is 50 years of gradual convergance until we arrive at a state where some forms of political and economic union are seen as naturally desirable. Too many second rate administrators and wannabe Washingtons are desperate to get their names into the history books as the "architects" of a European state.

Of course it doesn't help that some countries don't seem to have noticed that its not 1970 anymore, in economic terms. But presumably over 50 years they would see the error of their ways as they continued to decline?

[Ldvs]

Besides, can't we come up with something a bit more 21st century rather than apeing 19th century America?

What they have seems to work much better than what we have.

If you ask me, what we need is 50 years of gradual convergance until we arrive at a state where some forms of political and economic union are seen as naturally desirable. Too many second rate administrators and wannabe Washingtons are desperate to get their names into the history books as the "architects" of a European state.

Gradual convergence? How are we to achieve that when the EU's current institutions lead us to a stalemate. Everything is locked. You need to compromise on each bit of article, law or decree. Do you sincerely think we'll manage to converge? In my opinion, you don't want to.

[Snowhobbit]

I don't speak any Scandinavian languages, but it seems to me that Norwegian, Danish and Swedish are quite close, especially Danish and Swedish. I heard they could understand each other despite their different accent. I don't know to what extent this is right, maybe a Scandinavian will affirm or negate that claim.

THat is a vlaim I will affirm, although Norwegian is alot easier to understand than Danish, to much German in that language

[Meneldil]

Surprisingly, the Yes is winning, with a rather large advance.

And I thought you all were a bunch of anti-EU guys

[Ja'chyra]

I voted yes, but I wouldn't say that it is anywhere near ready.

When it does happen I will consider myself Scottish, as I do now I never refer to myself as British.

[Ldvs]

Surprisingly, the Yes is winning, with a rather large advance.

And I thought you all were a bunch of anti-EU guys

The silent majority, Meneldil

[English assassin]

Gradual convergence? How are we to achieve that when the EU's current institutions lead us to a stalemate. Everything is locked. You need to compromise on each bit of article, law or decree. Do you sincerely think we'll manage to converge? In my opinion, you don't want to

Well, there are some obvious cultural differences right there. Your reasoning suggests you see institutions as an engine of convergance. I see convergance as the fundamental driver, from which acceptable institutions would follow. I don't want to be MADE to converge, de haut en bas, no. But I don't see any reason why the free market that we have already will not in time and of itself drive a broader and consensual social and economic convergance that could then be reflected politically.

They are great planners, on the continent, IMHO. A plan is the answer for everything and nothing happens without a plan. Ergo to converge we must plan convergance. IMHO there are forces in history that will have their way more or less what you do with them, and the thing is not to plan but to perceive the way things are moving and move with them.